This decision of the Chancery Division is a useful reminder to lenders of the Court’s power to set aside a transaction intended to defraud a creditor under s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Facts

The Defendant, Mr Ahmed, was registered as the proprietor of two properties known as High Elm and Hilltop (the “Properties”). The Claimant advanced monies to be secured over the Properties by second legal charge. The Defendant fell into arrears and the Claimant commenced possession proceedings.

Re Lyondell Chemical Co, et al; Edward Weisfelner, as Trustee of the LB Litigation Trust v LR2 Management K/S [18.09.15]

US Bankruptcy Court confirms that a trustee in bankruptcy could not avoid freight payments made by charterers shortly before they applied for bankruptcy protection.

Implications

The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The English High Court yesterday sanctioned closure schemes of arrangement for The Orion Insurance Company PLC and The London and Overseas Insurance Company PLC, paving the way for the closure of these complex and long-running insolvencies stemming from 1994.

Speaking today, Hogan Lovells partner Joe Bannister said:

In September 2014 administrators were appointed over Strada restaurants (trading under SSRL Realisations Limited). The restaurant was tenant of a unit in a shopping centre in Bloomsbury.

Introduction

We recently commented on a Scottish case involving dissolution, disclaimer and restoration (read our Law-Now here). There has now been an English case raising the same issues which on the face of it analyses the same provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (UK wide legislation) in a different way to achieve the same result.

The approach of the courts

Key Point

The High Court has given some guidance on the effect of an order to restore a dissolved company to the register where a secured creditor has rights against that company and there has been a disclaimer by the Crown.

Facts

Key Point

Judgment sets out the rationale behind validating three payments made by a Company after the presentation of a winding up petition.

The Facts

This was the third application made by Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited (the “Company”) in connection with payments made that would require validation under s127 Insolvency Act 1986. The payments were necessary to keep part of its business going pending discussions on sale or restructuring.

The Decision

Key Points

• Court considers the ownership of assets situated at premises owned by the bankrupt in the context of limited relevant evidence
• Court emphasises the importance of joining the correct parties to litigation

The Facts

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.